Hi Everyone,

A brief update on  the efforts to improve the GAC-ccNSO exchanges.

I will report on the progress at the next call, but in the meantime I’d be interested in your thoughts and suggestions.

Regards,

Peter

Background:

At the council session in Buenos Aires, PVR was tasked to look into means for improving the quality of the GAC-ccNSO sessions during ICANN meetings.

Previous attempts to improve the satisfaction scores on the ccNSO meeting surveys had proven unsuccessful.

After discussing with Heather Dryden and Byron Holland in Buenos Aires, a call was set up with volunteers from the GAC (Elise Lindeberg, Thomas Schneider, Olga Cavalli (not on call but briefed later)) and CENTR (Wim Degezelle, Peter Van Roste) to identify the issues and come up with solutions.

This call took place on February 12, 2014 and the notes can be found below.

Notes:

Current status

From the ccNSO:

The GAC-ccNSO sessions receive rather low ratings in the ccNSO meeting surveys. Most people in the ccNSO do not see much added value in the meetings as they are one way exchanges of information that ccNSO attendants are already familiar with.

From the GAC:

The exchanges are too formal and do not reflect the excellent relation GAC members have with their ccTLD counterparts.

GAC and ccNSO should have a lot of topics to discuss, but people seem to shy away from controversy.

Reading slides aloud should be avoided at all cost.

Key issue is the lack of time for GAC members. Lack of time to prepare by reading documents, lack of time during the ICANN meeting so open agendas would drive people to their laptops.

Other constituencies are much more demanding and clear in what they expect from the GAC.

Having bilateral discussions is not efficient as those cannot be included in the GAC communiqué.

ccNSO needs to be much more precise/clear in what they ask. “We think this, what do you think, what are you going to tell/ask the board?”

ccNSO / ROs could help the GAC by sharing expertise on specific (controversial) topics. E.g. How do ccTLDs policies solve issues with domain names that are religious names, names or words referring to financial institutions, libel, blasphemy, …

Conclusion and next steps

There is demand for improvement on both sides.

The following 5 recommendations should be implemented and the effect they have on the quality of the meeting should be evaluated after the Singapore meeting by both groups.

1. Appoint someone in both the GAC and ccNSO who will then jointly prepare the meeting

2. ccNSO should send written material beforehand: 1 pager containing the topics that needs to be discussed with background info when relevant. Minimize material. Be brief and to the point. 

3. Both the ccNSO and the GAC should list what is expected from the other group

4. Public discussions are necessary otherwise they cannot be part of the GAC communiqué. Other groups understand this better.

5. In Singapore there needs to be a short session to explain this plan and ask for cooperation and involvement.

PVR and Thomas Schneider will report to their respective groups and reconnect to move things forward.

Peter Van Roste General Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 www.centr.org – twitter: centrnews